נשא תשפ״ב

00:00 Good evening, and welcome everyone to the, uh, Shiur on Panorama Halacha. This week is, um, Parshas Naso, Tov Shin Peh Bes. Today's Shiur is dedicated, uh, by, uh, one of our very regulars, by Rabbi Pinchas Rabin, in honor of his, uh, wife, Sarah Shoshana bas Chaya Dina, uh, for a... And this should have her refuah shleima. Incidentally, it's also my mother's yahrtzeit tonight, so Rivka, Morah Rivka bas, uh, Rabbi Avraham Yeshayahu. Okay. Let's start off with something which is not the Halacha, but it's a very, very interesting development here. So, the Minag is to have milchigs on the, on the, uh, Shavuos. And one of the reasons is, got to do with Matan Torah. The Yidden weren't able to have fleishigs, and therefore switched to, um, switched-- Therefore, they, um, they, they switched to Milchigs. So, Matan Torah, as we know, was on a Shabbos. So, there's a lady by the name of Malka who had a special relationship with the Rebbe. And she-- Now, that was over many, many years. And she once asked the Rebbe, "What did they have, uh, for Milchigs? Was it Cholov Yisrael?" Because the milk from yesterday was milked by non, by, by non-Jews because they weren't Yidden yet. Today, after Matan Torah, well, the milk which is gonna milk today is not Cholov Yisrael. Sorry, no, no. If they milk after Matan Torah, well, you can't milk after Matan Torah because it's Shabbos. You're not allowed to milk on Shabbos. So, the Rebbe says to her that since

01:58 the day of Matan Torah was a Shabbos, but it wasn't a full Shabbos, there is a Svara that it wasn't binding. That they were allowed to do Melacha because it's not a whole Shabbos. Shabbos is anyway, it's a whole, but if it's a part of a Shabbos, uh, for the whole of Klal Yisrael, then it's not binding. They're allowed to-- Therefore, they were allowed to milk the cows on Shabbos. So, Malka says, "Rebbe, I have a different suggestion. Perhaps the, the, the, the, uh, milk which they had milked the day before Matan Torah, although they weren't-- It wasn't Cholov Yisrael, but it was clearly-- It was like, imagine you have absolute confidence, like the, um, what they call now, Cholov Stam, the government regulations. You know that it's Cholov Yisrael. Sorry, you know that it's Cholov of a cow. It's not Cholov Yisrael because it wasn't watched. The milking wasn't watched by a Yid. But you know that it's, it's milk from a cow. So therefore, perhaps they used yesterday's milk, which was not Cholov Yisrael, it was Cholov Stam." And the Rebbe says to her, this is so beautiful. The Rebbe says, "Amongst the six hundred thousand Yidden, for sure amongst them were some Hasidishe Yidden, Yerei Shamayim, who wouldn't use Cholov Stam. They'd only use mamash Cholov Yisrael. And to say that we celebrate every year that we have Milchigs on, on Shavuos because Yidden then used Cholov Stam, that's a bit difficult to accept." And therefore, the Rebbe went into this very

03:27 interesting Chidush of, uh, that half, half a day of Matan Torah, sorry, a half a Shabbos doesn't count as a proper Shabbos. Now, this is what she said and exactly what she heard. It's not anything... It's not mugger. But here you have in the Kuntzes Sicha of Chelek Ches, and the Rebbe addresses this. Well, let's give it a couple of minutes. In Chelek Ches, it says, actually, a Sicha on this week's Torah. Talking about the Mitzvah of Shabbos. When the Mitzvah of Shabbos was given at Sinai. So, the Mitzvah of Shabbos, which became, was given at Moro, a few, a couple of weeks earlier, was kind of suspended, and now it's a new Mitzvah. And therefore, says the Rebbe, and therefore, the previous hours of Shabbos until Matan Torah become like a weekday. And as a result, the... And let's read his, his side. And, and we bald as Edom, it says, "We zag yivon, a pos of Michala." Therefore, he says, "Then, kom doch oys, az di oyl di shos shel achri Matan Torah, zen nit geved Shabbos." That even the hours after Matan Torah were not a full Shabbos because it wasn't the full Shabbos. So this, this which Malka was saying, which she heard from the Rebbe, you know, orally, was this s-s-very similar to the discussion which the Rebbe has here in the Mesicha. I'm gonna give it a couple of, a couple more minutes because it's, it's such a fascinating idea. Um, just wanted to give you the date. I

05:02 checked, and the date of this Sicha is from Tov Shin Chaf Vav. And it's in o-every, every likelihood it was a similar time when she had this conversation with the Rebbe. All right. So now, on this point about the Shabbos not being a binding Shabbos because it wasn't a full twenty-four hours. So, there you see the forty-seven with the star, which was the way the Rebbe would add, um... Sorry, forty-seven and a star. Um, which the Rebbe would add notes in the second checking, he would add, as the Rebbe would be, with asterisks. We help is the move in time Godlech with this idea that the Shabbos of Matan Torah was not fully binding because it was only half a Shabbos. Now we can understand the reason of Godel Echad, which is quoted in the Mishnah Beroor at the end of Tov Tzadik Dalet. And the Mishnah Beroor says it's a time nochin. Why do we have Milchigs and Shavuos? Zecher ozer that after Matan Torah, um- The Bosor, for if they wanted to have meat, they would have to have a big „hachona" to shecht and to cook. And therefore, because it was such a big gesheft, therefore, they kept to eating milchigs. L'choire, why does the Godol Echad in the Mishne Berura say that to make fleishigs would be a whole, a whole big new gesheft, a whole big, um, um, bother? You're gonna said it was 'cause it was Shabbos, and therefore it's also to shecht the whole day. As indeed, this

06:29 Sefer is brought in the Sefer, which two movers, that Tam Zeir, Beshem, Sefer Gulat Yisroel. So, the Sefer Gulat Yisroel, you have it over here. It's a Sefer which has got periods from the Bartitchever and others. Um, and he says they couldn't shecht in the Sefer Gulat Yisroel. They couldn't shecht on that day because it's Shabbos. And yet, here, let's read the Mishne Berura. „Vani mashamati oyde sheim Godol Echad, she'om haTam nochen lo zeh." But when they were at Matan Torah, they kiblu haTorah. Now, you're gonna start saying with-- In Aseres Hadibros, it doesn't talk about kosher or not kosher. Ki Be'aseres Hadibros nisgalah lahem ha'dei zeh, kol hilchot haTorah. The whole Torah was given to them in capsule form, as sa-- written by Rab Sadiguron. And the Aseres Hadibros incorporate the whole Torah. Rashi mentions this in Chumash, as we know, that the Aseres Hadibros have got twen- six hundred and twenty letters corresponding to the entire, um, Taryag mitzvahs, et cetera. And so he says, this Godol Echad says, they went from the Yad Min HaHor, they went from the mountain to the house. They didn't have what to eat right away. They only, only were milchigs. But fleishigs, they would have to start shechting a, a, a-- with a new knife, with a-- which was checked as a kasher liv'chasham. And they'd have to start purging the, the, uh, cheilev, and they'd have to start rinsing and de-salting and cooking a new cheilim because the old cheilim were also... Therefore, they went

07:57 to, for, for, for, uh, quickly, to make things quicker, they had milchigs. So what the Rebbe is saying, underpinning this, um, this reason quoted in the Mishne Berura, doesn't say who the Godol Echad was. But underpinning that is an understanding that they were allowed to do melacha on that Shabbos. Because Rebbe says, and Gemara says, every-everyone agrees it was Shabbos Niftah Torah. And this is, the Rebbe is saying this further, that since that Shabbos was only a half Shabbos, it wasn't the entire twenty-four hour of the new Shabbos, it wasn't a twenty-four, it wasn't a full of the old Shabbos. And as a result, they'd-- actually, they were allowed to do melacha. So yeah, um, therefore, they were allowed to milk the cows fresh. Um, really, they could have... And then you see the wording of the Mishne Berura, they could have really shechted also, but it would have been a much bigger bother to start shechting, therefore they kept to milchigs. Okay, just I found this, uh, very interesting and... All right, let's move on. When was Chol HaYisrael introduced? That's a very good question. But we know that i-it was introduced, let's say, in the Rabbonin, obviously. Um, l'choire, an shechal es hagdolah or thereabout. But we know that, um, that, that even that HaAvram Avinu, the Avos kept a-an edah of Eruv, Eruv Chaim, um, Yichas Pri Ha'ir, they would have kept the din of Eruv. So they, the Avos kept it. They, they, it's through Rabbonin also, this is Rabbonin. Okay.

09:26 Now I'm gonna share with you what I, uh, was bothering me on Shavuos, having gone through the Tikkun Leil Shavuos. And I was bothered about the s-- the order of the Mishnahs. Now, I be bothered every year, but now, uh, I decided to do a bit of homework. Okay, so the order of the Mishnahs is after the, and let's say, Masada Moed, Shabbos, Erubin. Then goes Pesach, Mishkolim, Yoma, Sukkah, Bechor, Rosh Chodesh, Megillah, Moed, Miketz, Chagigah. In the Tikkun Leil Shavuos, the order is different. It's Pesach, Chagigah, Moed Katan. S-sorry, Bechor, Moed Katan, then Rosh Chodesh, Yoma, Sukkah, Taanis, Mishkolim, and Megillah is the last. And then this goes to the other changes also in, in say, the Noshim and in say, the Taharas. So I was intrigued, why is there this change? I was going through my mind, perhaps in Jerusalem, it's a different order, but I didn't, I didn't do my homework on that. So I, I found that there's a Sefer, there's a Sefer called Matamim, and there's a second, um, uh, Madura called Matamim HaChadash. See, in the Matamim HaChadash, on the listing on the Shavuos, he discusses this, and he says that the order of the Mishnah is as done by Rabbeinu HaKadosh, which is often this-- addressed in the Gemara. Why is this after that? At the beginning of Gemara Sotah, why is Sotah coming after Nazir, et cetera? Many times, the Gemara does explain the sequence. Also, you look in Pirkei Mishnayos, the Rambam, he always explains the

10:58 sequence of the Mashechtos. That seems to be more a hierarchy, uh, sequence. Whereas here, he says it's more a chronological sequence. And therefore, after Pesach, he says, therefore, comes Chagigah because you do a Cham Chagigah together with the Cham Pesach. Pesach is a Chayom Tov, say, I have Bechor, which is the dinim of Yom Tov. Pesach also includes Challa Moed. Therefore, you're talking about Moed Katan, which is Challa Moed. After we've dealt with Pesach, with Yochas Yom Tov and Yochas Challa Moed, then goes Rosh Chodesh, Yoma, Sukkah chronologically. Then comes Taanis. Taanis is, uh, primarily talking about fast for, like, when there's, um, uh, there's a, like, a lack of rainfall. When do you have a lack of rainfall? And when is that relevant? After Sukkah, it's coming into winter. Cheshvan, Kislev, that's the time when they, when they were worried, when they needed to have the rain. Therefore, Taanis comes after Sukkah. After that comes Shekalim because Shekalim, we know, Rosh Chodesh Adar, they started collecting the Shekalim for the new budget for Rosh Chodesh Nisan After Aris Sheidesh Ada, then comes Megillah. So that's the explanation. It's going through the, the chronological, the order of the year. That's the explanation over here. Uh, he also explains the other changes, um, but I don't want to take the time here now. I'm giving you the address. It's in the Sefer Matamim HaChodosh, and you can look it up and, uh, enjoy. Let's move on. Okay. Last week, we had a discussion about a brother

12:34 and sister acting together as Kvater. And someone, uh, called me out on this one. Doesn't s-this doesn't seem to be logical, and actually, I'm inclined to agree with him. I took this from the Sefer Psokim and Shuras. And as you can see, this, his source says that one should not be Kvater Ke together with a, a, an aunt, with a mother-in-law. A father and daughter is okay. In the note, he says, "Kvater, im hachoise ni rposhet d'shori." But he hasn't got ample backing in the Poskim. Now, what's, what's the, what's the issue here? Here, here is a, a, a, um, a man and woman who should not be having a, um, a close affectionate contact. That's, that's the issue. So, a father and daughter, that is permitted. A mother and a son is permitted. But an, um, someone with his aunt, and certainly with his mother-in-law, no, no difference in a sense, certainly, but m-more obvious. So they are not allowed to have affectionate contact. What about a brother and sister? Are they allowed to have affectionate contact or not? And I'm going to address this because I think there's a lot of, uh, uh, amaratus about this. So let's read. There is a poshet from Shuchan Aruch. This is a Shuchan Aruch, um, simi-e-everyone has a simi chof alef. It's basically the loshen of the Rambam in, uh, Yisro Elia, forgot which perek it is, whatever. So he says the following. "Am achavveik," or, um, one who embraces or kisses one of the aroyes,

14:16 one of his close relatives. She ein li beshal adom noi chva'aleim. There's nothing lewd about that. It doesn't feel any way that way. "K'goy na choyste hagdo," his adult sister. "Va choyst oviv," his aunt. "Keise bim av api she ein li shum ha'noa kalal." It's, it's purely, um, expressing, you know, your f-your family. You're, you're not... There's no, no, um, let's use the word lewd, um, kavana over here. "Ha'reize megune v'yoise v'dovor osuhu u'maase tipshim." Yeah, he says it's forbidden. Now, there's a famous story in the Gemara about Ula, who would kiss his, his sister's hand. And that same Gemara tells a story. The conclusion says it's not okay, and Ula himself accepted he, but it was wrong. So the halakha remains, this is a Shuchan Aruch, that it's not allowed with, with achuste hagdo, the adult sister. Of course, with the younger sisters, uh, it's, um, where, what, where do you draw the line? But, uh, but an adult sister, um, certainly a married sister, then one should not have affectionate contact. Um, then he says, "Keitzat," a mo- a father and daughter, mother and son, that's okay, keitzat. "Mutav l'chavek bito," a father is allowed to embrace his daughter, "l'nashke," to kiss her. Um, and, "V'lishon ibah b'kirav vas," and even to have, to, uh, le- sleep in bed together. And a mother with her daughter, and here he adds on, though, "Kol zeman sheheim ktanim." This is only once they-- whilst they're young. "Ig'dilo," once the child starts growing older, then that's

15:54 not allowed. Give some more detail. Now, here, the question, there's an ambiguity here. It started saying that you're allowed to, a father is allowed to embrace the daughter and allowed to ha- uh, to, to sleep in bed together. Um, but once they grow older, you're not allowed to. Does the not allowed to once they grow up, does that also apply to the embracing? Or is it only reli-- in relation to the sleeping in, in the bed? So this, it's ambiguous. And now let's read the next slide. This is the Rambam. I think I've almost got through this, uh, last year, two years ago. But this is Rambam, Pirkei Avot, Shevas Ein Hahed. He has a lot of discussion. The Rambam wrote his Pirkei Avot Mishnah. Don't forget, there was no Shuchan Aruch then. People learn Mishnah, and he wrote it in Arabic for the simple people to be able to have a Halakha l'Maase from, uh, learning, whilst they were learning Mishnah. So a lot of things, and also a lot of, um, how do you say, values. A lot of the values which he discusses also in Sefer HaYad, even in the Rambam, he addresses them in his Pirkei Avot Mishnah. Um, so that's why you have, like, the Shemoneh Prakim in, in, in Ovos, et cetera. So here in Pere- is, is in Perec Shevas Ein Hahed. So this is a mother is allowed to, uh, kiss her son, "Ad she yushal mu leish temes ha'shan," till the son is twelve years old.

17:15 The father is allowed to cha- um, um, sh- kiss his daughter and em-em-embrace her until she's nine years old. So the Rambam has put a limit. When it says a father with a daughter and a mother with a son, it's only talking about when they are minors. That's the way the Rambam Pirkei Avot Mishnah is. In Sefer HaYad, Mishneh Torah, he does not give those details. Furthermore, looking in Shuchan Aruch, Siman Chaf Alef, so we look here, we've got the Prisha. The Prisha is a commentary on the, on the Tur. He says the following: "Ha'av mutav l'chavek u'nashak es bito nideh d'afilu k'shehigdolu lamutav." The, the wording implies that even once, whilst the daughter is an adult, it is permitted to have affectionate contact. Since, he says, with achuste hagdola, you're not allowed to. Then he says, father and daughter is allowed to. And therefore, that means e-even when she's an adult Ah, it says, because, because Ɣim k'tanim, that which it says that only when the daughter is, is, uh, or the son is, is a minor, that's talking about literally moi mikirah basar, being in bed, um, cl-close by. But the first part of, of, of, uh, having affectionate contact. So the Prisha, in other words, we have a Rambam. The Prisha Mishnah says it's not allowed, and we have a, uh, a posek in early Achronim who says it is allowed. Fine. Now, let's, let's come back then. Coming back. Then utter. Brother and sister. We allow father and daughter and a

18:45 son and m-m-man-- and his brother, so there seems to be no restriction at all. Let's, let's say like the Prisha. But a, but brother and sister should not be having affectionate contact. As a result, they shouldn't be, uh, like with an aunt, like, like with a brother-in-law. They should be the same halakha. They shouldn't be having, being, being kvatter together. That's the way I understand. I don't, I don't see any, uh, difference in halakha between, um, the restrictions of affectionate relationship with a, with a, with an aunt and with an u-um, an adult sister. That seems to be the... Um, now, someone is putting here on that, uh, on the chat that there is a, in the Igrot Kodesh, that a, a, a son is allowed to, um, uh, it's permitted for a son who's an adult to, uh, have affectionate contact with his mother. Thank you very much, um, and I'm sure in due course we'll have a Maran Mokim on that, but fine. Thank you. So in other words, we're following the, the Prisha, which is the Pakdat Kat in the Chuch Norach, although the Rambam is, as we see, uh, in Rambam Prisha Mishnah is strict. Okay, fine. Um, someone sent me, related to this question about the kvatter, possibly it was when they saw the, uh, Shiur from last week. May a divorced couple be kvatter? There's, there's a grandchild who's having a bris. Unfortunately, the grandparents are divorced. Uh, they're both in town. Could they be kvatter? Now, I don't

20:16 have a meforsha, um, sack on this, but there are clear guidelines that a divorced couple, a man and woman who are divorced, should not be having business dealings with one another. Of course, it's inevitable they're gonna have to deal with custody, the custody kind of stuff, like access and all that kind of stuff. They're gonna have to have a degree of conversation. But they should not be having, um, business contacts, et cetera. Um, just to make life easier, I've taken... This is from Mishkan Norach, Even HaEzer again, Kuf Yod Tes. The quote which you have on the screen is from the Aroch HaShulchan, where he says... Well, really the same thing is in the, in the Shach. Sorry, not the Shach, in the Cheches Machokek on, on the spot, in, in the Mishkan Norach, in again, Kuf Yod Tes. Um, V'afar pishe ei misyachadin. Uh, he says that, that if... Sorry, again. If the, if one spouse has a ch- an own, a debt, a charge on the other, they should not be demanding directly. It should go through a third party, um, even if there's no yichud involved. Even she, um, shenoisee veneeseen imo, that's, one shouldn't be having a, an engagement in a way that they'll get to, to bring to yichud. Um, umeile d'chol min eseik asurim lasus beyachad. They shouldn't be having any kind of business with one another. Because shetsichin ladavi beyachad. V'lisav, v'lisain imo. Um, v'halvezem izo vezem ize. There shouldn't be any, any kind of, um, voluntary engagement

21:58 with one another. Uh, other than it should be on, after, after a divorce, uh, other than through a, an intermediary shliach. As a result, to the point, if there would be a litigation between one and the other, there would even be, um, punishment in prison. But meanwhile, there should not be a, uh, a, uh, a close relationship between divorced, um, hu-um, husband, man and woman. And I think that to be a kvatter is, uh, is, is included in that. But that, that's as much as I can tell you. Okay, let's move on. What do we have here? Um, question number four is having eaten milchigs, and now I want to have fleishigs. I need to have a hafse, a hefsek. Now, does, does, does benching, um, work for this? Can we... D-that, um, well, and is it not a question of bracha sheini sheichah? So now, here in Siman Peh Tes, in Yoreh Deah. Now, the source of having to have it in a separate meal is from the Zohar, Zohar Parashat Mishpatim, which says that milk and meat should not be eaten in the same hour, not in the same meal. Therefore, there is an idea of davka having to withdraw from the first meal before, and then you can go into the next meal. Now, the Mara Moore says, "V'yesh oimri de'ein levor b'irchas hamotzial amanat lechel gevina." Bear in mind that the, uh, the Ashkenazim, or the original Ashkenazim minag was you only have to wait an hour after fleishigs before milchigs.

23:42 So to davka bench in order to be able to have after fleishigs in order to have milchigs, or payos is the other way around. Davka to bench after milchigs in order to be able to have fleishigs. So those that say you should not be doing that. That's one of the Rishonim, um, I think so, is the Rua. Aval ein iz horin bazeh. But the community generally are not concerned about this, and they do bench in order to break up between fleishigs and milchigs to be able to have the other food, um, shortly after the first one. In the Taz, on the margin here, which I've da-- I've recorded here in the Shechinach. In the Taz, in the mar-margin of the Shechinach, he says, "What's, what..." Tosfos in Chulin Daf Kuf Heh says, "If you asilei kuberach, if you withdraw from the meal, and you benched, and now they brought now a fresh cream cake, um, which is milchig, and you decide that, you decide that again that, oh, now I am hungry." Yeah. You change your mind. So then you're allowed to, you're allowed to have now the milchigs. But to bench in order-- But y-you're benching, but you're not finished eating. You're only benching because you want to continue eating. He says that's not genuine. He doesn't a-a ch-challenge from the question of unnecessary bracha. He says it's ineffective. It's, i-it's, uh, it's, it, it's not a siluk. You haven't withdrawn from eating. You intend to continue eating. That's the Taz. Um, the later

25:08 Achronim disagree with the Taz, and they justify the ein iz horin, the communal meaning not to be and to bench in order to... And they say that we fi-find elsewhere that breaking up a meal into two is actually counted as a separate unit. And there's the c- the well-known discussion about, um, breaking up a Shabbos meal by day in order to be able to go to Shalosh Seudahs. So it could be on Erev Pesach in the morning, or let's say you've only started your meal late and it's a winter afternoon, Shabbos afternoon, not gonna be enough time to have a, a, a proper Shalosh Seudahs. So there's a svara, oh, stopping, uh, after the fish and make Birkat Hamazon, and then wash again and have, have your, uh, uh, cholent, et cetera. It's such a, such an opinion. Um, so there you see that it's, it's a separate meal. It's been, so as a bench, it makes it a separate meal. Now, that's one, uh, issue. Is, is the Birkat Hamazon effective in breaking up the hem-- the continuity? That's one issue. The other issue is, is there a question of brachas sheein tzricho? And here, there's a fascinating Kuntres Achron in Siman Resh Mem Tes. And here, the Alter Rebbe analyzes what does it mean, brachas sheein tzricho. Who doesn't need it? Who does need it? What is called a need? And so, the precedent of this whole worry about brachas sheein tzricho is a story of the Cohen Gadol on Yom Kippur, where

26:42 he would do two readings. One from Parshas Acharei, and that would be read from a Sefer Torah. The second reading was Parshas Pinchas in Sefer Bamidbar, and that he would do orally. Normally, we don't say, say it words of the written Torah orally, and yet he would. And the-- one of the reasons given is because if you take another Sefer Torah, you'd have to make another bracha because it's a new, uh, another item. You'd have to make a new, it's a brachas sheein tzricho. So we see there, there is a concern of a brachas sheein tzricho. Says the Alter Rebbe that, certainly according to the Rosh, brachas sheein tzricho means for your be- your personal benefit. If it's just tzorcheh shamayim, not tzorcheh ha'adam, like in the case of the Cohen Gadol, to make another brach in order to read another from another Sefer Torah, brachas sheein tzricho. But let's say I, I, um, I, I love seven-layer chocolate cake. Shma, am ha'chayim. Between one layer of the cake, there's the cream, another... Um, vkhulo. Yeah? So now-- But you know what? If you'd re-bring me seven-layer chocolate cake between the fish and the chicken soup, I'd say, "Not now. I'm not interested. Not-- That's not the time for, for, for cream cake." But I, I shall... When do I have it? Oh, before the meal, when I'm-- when-- not during a meal. So now, let's say it comes Shabbos, and I make kiddush, and I want to have a piece of chocolate cake, cream

28:15 cake. I don't want it later. I want it now. As a result- It's mine. It's not cream. Oh. Get closer. So it's a question of brachas sheein tzricho. So he says no. That is what you want. That's your, the brachas for ha'onah seudom. And therefore, that's, that's okay. That's legitimate. Brachas sheein tzricho means if it's not needed for ha'onah seudom. On that basis, I think that if you are making a bracha achronah, in order to now be able to have a new sequence, to be able to have fleishigs, some milchigs, whatever it may be, but that is tzricho. You need to-- You want to be-- The ha'onah seudom is that you want to have now fleishigs. I think it does fall into the category of bracha hatzricho. There are those who disagree, I know, but, um, that's my understanding according to the Alter Rebbe's definition. Um, I'm middle of working on it to get a clarokeit, but I think that is, uh, that would be according to chumra ve-lem. Meanwhile, someone-- I, I gave over this concept at, uh, Kindus Torah on Yisro Chag BaNight in, in Heichal Menachem, Golders Green. And meanwhile, someone was a-asking a question. Can you, on a Sh- Friday night or Shabbos, can you leave the dessert for after benching, or is it a problem of brachas sheein tzricho? Why do you want to do it? Because, you know, sometimes you have guests who want to go away, and sometimes it gives his wife a, the chance, um, to be

29:50 able to prepare the dessert, whatever it may be. For technical reasons, he wants to have the dessert. They want to have the dessert after benching. Is it not a question of brachas sheein tzricho? Like this, the dessert could have been ben- included in the benching, and now it's going to have a separate bracha. So here's a very interesting, uh, th-this is the last piece in Alter Rebbe's Shechinah Chelek Alef. Talks about this. The Magen Avraham is not so happy about this. But here, the Alter Rebbe, because of brachas sheein tzricho, the Alter Rebbe passes, like the Aven Ha'o, is that you are allowed. And he says the following. If you're gonna have, let's say, I have a piece of cake, chocolate cake, and bench, I have another piece of chocolate cake with a bracha. That's a brachas sheein tzricho. I could have had both pieces with one bracha. But if I'm having one food which is a chashuve food, the other one, if I have it now, it won't have its own bracha because it's toveled to the other one. But if I have it separate, then it will have its own bracha. So he says, he says, let's read inside. If this, if it is bemed var mamurim, when do we say you should not generate two brachas unnecessarily? When it's one bracha for which works for both of them. But if it's, if the berakhah is for one and the other one will only be incorporated, but, uh, in a tofel way, in

31:09 a sub-subsidiary way, then better to break them apart, have take of two berakhahs. Therefore, he says, if a-- if you want, you were brought a meal, they brought some fruit, and it's b-actually better to leave for after the meal. Because if you have them during the meal, you're not gonna make a berakhah after the meal-- on the, on the, on the, uh, on the fruit. I... They're gonna be included in the bentching, but that's only on a-- as a subsidiary, not as-- n-not, it's not for them. It's just that they are tofel to the, to the hamotzi. Whereas if you have them afterwards, so then you're gonna have-- It's gonna have its own berakhah achronah rather than being incorporated with something else. Therefore, that's not a problem of berakhah she'netzricha. That's the shita we tell the Rebbe Paskins, l'chatchilah. V'yesh choilkhim. That's the Mogan Avraham who disagrees with this, and he says, it is a concern of berakhah she'netzricha. V'yesh l'hakhmek kesvara ha'rishona. Which means, l'choire, that you sh- it's better to break them apart. That seems to be the current. Especially on Shabbat, if you want to make up your quota of, um, of hundred berakhahs, so then leave the dessert for after bentching. And as a result, um, let's say the fruit, you leave them for after bentching. In this way, you'll be able to make up your meah berakhahs rather than having to rely on, for your meah berakhahs, to rely on chazarat hashatz or the berakhahs of learning in Haftarah. This

32:30 is more straightforward than, than, uh, relying on, um, the chazarat hashatz, et cetera, for meah berakhahs. So seems to be quite clear that the Alter Rebbe Paskins that you are allowed to do this, and even seems to be recommended. Um, okay. We had-- I had a very interesting shailah. One of our listeners of the recording, somewhere in the United States, writes to me this week. He had the following, um, um, uh, scenario happen this Shul. In middle of birkas Kohanim, the hazan skipped a word. And so he's prompting the Kohanim, and he skipped a word. He's going, "Pono." Instead of Pono, he said, "Elecho." And then everyone else says, "Pono." Then, now the Kohanim, however, standing in the front, do they say Elecho because the hazan said Elecho? Do they say Pono because, uh, everyone else is saying Pono? Became a whole, the whole confusion. And so what should be done? What should, what should they have done? So I couldn't find this, you know. With all the, um, you know, halakhim, et cetera, I couldn't find this addressed directly. For me, it's a davar pashut that the Kohanim should not have listened to the hazan, and they should have listened to the other people. It's, am levaveha means Yisroel tells the Kohanim what to say. It doesn't matter which one. It could be anyone in the-- It could be lav dakfa de'hazan. Uh, but there was now a confusion. What happens when there's such a confusion? If it-- I'm, I'm judging o-on, on the

34:08 spot, but I would, I would consider possibly saying, um, "You know what? Let's start the pasuk all over again. It's such a confusion. Start all over again, and start from the beginning of that pasuk." That's, that's how-- Uh, depending on the degree of confusion. If it's just dealt with right away. But if it's, uh, the way he seems to have described it, uh, I think just tell them to start again. Now, the source which I have for this is a little bit from Kriyat Shma. And I'm just gonna share with you what happens, um, with a mistake. If the baal koreh makes a mistake, when does he go back, and when does he not go back? And I'm, I'm, I'm honest, uh, that I, I'm seeing here, uh, stuff which I don't know really have a clarity. So we have here, yeah, the, the lower quote is from a Sefer called Shaarei, uh, um, Rachamim, which is a commentary on the Shaarei Efrayim, which is specialized in Sefer, uh, Kriyat Shma. It says, "If the hazan makes a mistake, could be with his trope or with a other mistake. If it's a pasuk where he mentions Hashem's name, he can go back to the beginning of the pasuk. And it's not a problem of saying half a pasuk because he's going back only because of the choimer, of the, the severity of saying Hashem's name in vain." I really don't understand what happened here. What-- He's already said Hashem's name in this, and he's going

35:52 back and repeating it. It's really unclear what he's saying here. Um, I don't understand. Um, he quotes the Chayyei Odom, and I, I... The Chayyei Odom says something totally different. Um, how do I know? The Tzitz Eliezer, which, uh, Tzitz Eliezer has, uh, in the true and same Chasam Sofer in Chelek Bet. He has a whole-- He challenges the Shaarei Rachamim. He probably took the whole Chayyei Odom and distorted it, but never mind. Um, meanwhile, I have here two quotes from Sichoth of the Friediker Rebbe. And one is from the Kutie DeBurim, and one is from Chelek-- Sefer HaSichoth Taf Shin Daled. So now he says the Rabbeim were, this Taf Shin, study, um, in Kutie DeBurim, Rabbeim were particular about Kriyat HaTorah. It should be very accurate. And often, it would be that the baal koreh had made a mistake in-- even in one of the trope, and he would have to repeat it, repeat the word. When a mall, a halbin or the aganza pasuk, sometimes you would have to repeat a half a pasuk or a whole pasuk. Or if it's a nid given can as koreh in them pasuk. If there wasn't a Hashem's name in the pasuk. So what's, what's he saying? If there was Hashem's name in the pasuk, they wouldn't go back. If there was-- yeah. If there was Hashem's name, they wouldn't go back. That seems to be the drift here. That if, if even if there was a mistake, they wouldn't go back if there was

37:22 Hashem's name. That's the, the drift I get over here. I might be wrong. But now I'm looking now the second quote from Sefer HaSihichot Taf Shin Dalet. Here, he's talking about the Tzemach Tzedek, um, that he was particular about Krias HaTorah, Terumah, et cetera. Amol hategiheisen. He once told the Baal Koreh who made a mistake with the Terumah, ezov ibez og nog hamol, he should repeat again. Uh, hagam azot sulib dem gedfti bezog nog hamom beshem. That at this time, he says, even though as a result of the repetition, he had to say Hashem's name again, he still told him, told him to repeat it. So now if-- here he's saying that, that even if there is Hashem's name in the part which you've said with the wrong Terumah, you still would repeat it and wouldn't be phased by the fact that you have to repeat Hashem's name. And what's then the other sidra saying, the impression is that because of Hashem's name there, you wouldn't repeat it. I'm really very confused. And, um, I remember once seeing someone wrote an article to try to explain all of this. I seem to remember it was in the Hiskashrus, um, weekly, um, uh, pamphlet. I wrote to, uh, Rabbi Ginsburg. I asked him if he remembers, and he u-unfortunately didn't remember where it was. So I'm, I'm just mystified by this. Okay, let's move on. Someone's asking that before Krias HaTorah, we have on Mondays and Thursdays, Kedei Achapayim, and on Shabbos, we have Atah Choreish

38:54 Od Az. Now, in the siddurim, the caption here, At-- uh, said o hitzoah sefer Torah. Is it before Atah Choreish or is it before Vayihin Soher? So there are in the Kahot siddurim, some-- one sometimes is like this, sometimes like that. His question is, is Kedei Achapayim got to do with Krias HaTorah or is it just got to do with Mondays and Thursdays? And I asked-- and I answered him that definitely it's a preamble to Krias HaTorah. To the point that I would say that, I mean, I'm sh-sharing with you, that the Abudraham says that on a town, it's tzibur, which is not necessarily on a Monday or Thursday. So although the Alter Rebbe here says... No, it's not. I don't have it here. Although the Alter Rebbe does say, lo tishnei vachamishi, but most of the times, Kedei Achapayim is wrote in the weekdays, it's kedei sheinei vachamishi. But it could be also on a town. If it's on a T-Tuesday or Wednesday also. Let's read inside. Uh, this is about-- this is the Abudraham. Three quotes from different places. Oim kedei achapayim, um, umeitzes sefer Torah. Okay. Then we have, this is, uh, a second place. Uch-- and this is in Shabbos, I think. Uchshemitziyim sefer Torah, oim ve'atah horeis ula'daas bimkom kedei achapayim. Clearly, it's got to do with that sefer Torah. Here's a very interesting one. Here about Purim, he says, uchshemitziyim sefer Torah, oim ve'atah horeis ula'daas bimkom kedei achapayim. Very interesting. He's saying on Purim, because you're not gonna

40:25 say Tachnun, therefore you're not gonna say Kedei Achapayim, so say Atah Choreish instead. Um, that I'm sure is not Araminic. Such a big chiddush we would have heard about. But, um, what do you do on a town? Do you say Kedei Achapayim? I, I don't have, uh, enough evidence to say no. And I would say it's Krias HaTorah in the weekdays. So you say, you say Tachnun, so one should. Um, so here is the comparing two prints. This is a contemporary print of the, uh, Chabad siddur. Here's the original print, the Shklov of, of Samuel Gimmel. You can see there's no captions at all. There's no caption above Atah Choreish and no caption before Vayihin Soher. So this caption over here, said o hitzoah sefer Torah, this is of a later publisher and, you know, it doesn't-- it's not, not really binding. Uh, and definitely Atah Choreish Od Az, uh, it has to do with Krias HaTorah. And if you're not having Krias HaTorah, you don't say Atah Choreish Od Az. Ad mecha poshet. Um, ma she'ein kein, the posek, Vanes vefilosi, which we say on Shabbos afternoon, that is clearly not to do with Krias HaTorah. And clearly, looking at the Rebbe siddur, uh, the wording over there, that if for whatever reason, there's no minyan-- Sorry, that there's no sefer Torah, you'd still say Vanes vefilosi. But in that case, he says you should say Vanes vefilosi before the Kaddish. In other words, before the-- Again, um... Okay, too fast, perhaps. If there's

41:53 no sefer Torah at Shabbos Mincha, so then you go Avallitzion, Kaddish, straight into, uh, to the Shemoneh Esreh. There's only one Kaddish. If that's the case, Vanes vefilosi should be said, um, yag l'Torah v'yad, Vanes vefilosi, and then Yizgeir is done. Why so? Because after the Kaddish, before Shemoneh Esreh, one shouldn't be mafsik. One shouldn't be mafsik with other things because the Kaddish should go straight into Shemoneh Esreh. Which I know I'm getting into a minefield because there's a whole poshut. What do you do with your halalu, um, uh, halalu et Hashem shomayim? What do you do by Shabbos Mincha? When do you say it? But, uh, to say it after Kaddish, before Shemoneh Esreh, is difficult because the Shemoneh Esreh says clearly Vanes vefilosi should not be said then because of mafsik. So the posek of yihalalu is also mafsik. So really, um, that's a mystery on its own, which I haven't managed to resolve. Let's move on. Okay. Um, a couple of weeks ago, I shared with you about some, uh, fellow who suggested about this racha and the difference between racha meitzit koscho and Nusach Ashkenaz having racha mem zit koscho. I shared with you that the racha mem is an innovation of Yitzchak of Satanov, who was a maskil, and somehow it's kept in some Ashkenaz siddurim, but it's really not the original format. Meanwhile, since then, my, uh, cousin, Rab-- uh, Rab-- Falik Strock, who's a sh-shliach in Vancouver- He got very excited about this thing. He's done a lot

43:22 of research about One of the Chaya. And he's shared with me how-- You can see on the left is his table, uh, exploring the Es Sferis, and he's got very interesting, um, contemp-contemporary translations of the Es Sferis rather than the, the, uh, more common, uh, um, wording which is used. For example, he has Das as conviction, um, Tiferes as a harmony, or a firmness, not might, et cetera. But anyway, he's, he's-- it takes the v-- His, his position is the following. We've got the six words of One of the Chaya. You know, you've got the first-- Well, we've got seven sentences corresponding to Chesed, Gvurah, Tiferes, Netzach, Hod, Yesod, Malchus. That's, that's Poshut. It corresponds to the seven Midas. Then the f-- the six words are corresponding within each line, correspond to Chesed, Gvurah, Tiferes, and then Netzach, Hod, Yesod. And then the last, the abbreviation is Malchus. Okay. And what he's explaining to me is the following, that between Tiferes and Hod, sorry, Tiferes and, and Tiferes and Netzach, there is a natural flow. After the stage of Tiferes, there, there is a, a, a, uh, a draw to go on to the next stage, to go into-- from, from Midas into Maise. With the exception of Midas Hagvura. With Midas Hagvura, with-- there's, there's actually, it's desirable that there should be a pause between the emotion and the implementation. So the, uh, Chesed, Gvurah, Tiferes is the emotion. Netzach, Hod, Yesod is the implementation. There should be a pause between them. And therefore,

45:06 he says, "Look at, look at the seven lines. Of the six out of the seven, the, the two middle words corresponding to Tiferes and Netzach are naturally connected. „Dulas imincha, dershi yichudcha, verev tuvcha, la'amcha pnei, sh'matsach oseinu." The one which is clearly separated is the second line by Gvurah. "Kabbalienes amcha. Sagveinu, tareinu, neir." Accept the song of your people. Exalt us, purify us, O, um, O, O, awesome one. So what he's saying, and this is very precise, that davka on the second line, which is corresponding to Gvurah, there is a necessary pause between the third and the fourth word. But she'inking, in the fourth line, which, right, which corresponds to Netza-to, to Netzach, between "rachmei" and "tzidkoscha," there's no need for a pause. On the contrary, it should be flowing. And therefore, whoever came up with this idea of changing for "rachmei" to "rachmeim" was obviously, uh, unaware of the, uh, Kabbalah, Kabbalah Kavanas of this, uh, of this shtikl, of, uh, our davening. Okay. Um, okay, that's what I have to share with you for this evening, and I apologize for end, ending a little bit earlier. But I wish you all a, uh, Good Shabbos, and we should hear Besuras Tevuos, Refuos, Nechamos, Yeshuos, and Besimchas Olam Al Roshom, Gula, Shlomo, MishMashiach Tzidkeinu. Um, we learned today in Gemara about Eliyahu Hanavi not coming on a Friday or on a Shabbos, not to bother people with, uh, distract them from their preparation of the cholent. But the Rebbe takes the view it can

46:42 come even on a Friday and even on a Shabbos. And, uh, these problems we'll be able to solve out, solve then also. Once, um, I'll just finish off. Um, one time, Rabbi Chaim Guttnick was by the Rebbe, and, uh, there was a question. So the Rebbe said, he said, he asked something about, about Mashiach. "So when Mashiach will come," the Rebbe says, "he'll answer this question." So Rabbi Chaim Guttnick asks, "But it's, isn't it Eliyahu Hanavi's job to answer all the questions? Tishbi, Tchu stands for Tishbi Yitar Kupshas Rebois." Uh-huh. Um, so, uh, the Rebbe said, "Oh, the, der shailah, Mashiach echad v'echad. The shailah." Well, I see someone's pointed out I missed out question nine. Yes. So this happened to me, um, just yesterday morning. The chazan was slightly ahead of me, and so I was just finishing Od Yosef Yu, and he was in middle-- about to say, you know, about to say Kaddish after Yushtabach. So I stopped there with the intention that after I answered Boruch Hu, I will say Yushtabach. But just after I answered Boruch Hu, by kind of, uh, automatically, I went, uh, and instead said, "Baruch Hashem okeil melachoyno." And oops, I realized, "Oh, what do I do now?" Obviously, I can't, you know, it's a brocho lavatalah to, to cancel that one, yeah. So fortunately, I have next to my place in shul, I have this two set, two-volume set called Shiyis Mijavan. So there and then I pulled out the sefer, and I found there's

48:09 three opinions. Um, so, uh, basically, what do you do here? You, you, again, you've, you've, uh, you should have said Yushtabach, and by mistake, you skipped Yushtabach, you started Yoetz Oh. So, um, one says, "You lost it. You can't say Yushtabach later." The other one says, "Say Yushtabach. Uh, you owe a Yushtabach, so you can pay that debt between Ben HaProchim." So what I did was, actually, I followed that opinion, and after Yoetz HaMeois, before Av HaSolom, I put in the Yushtabach over there. Uh, the third opinion is to say, after Shemoneh Esreh, you'll say some, uh, a k- a, a bit of Tehillim and say Yushtabach then. So I didn't have time to go through all of those shitas, but certainly, uh, you know, it's-- We had also in Gemara yesterday about Hachra. There's, uh, three opinions. So I think the, the, the, um, the one who says that you should say it, it seems to be a middle opinion, and so, uh, we can follow the middle opinion. Okay. So that's it for now. And again, wish you a good Shabbos and, uh, Simchas and Gesundheit and Geulah. Kol tuv.